The present invention relates to automated dispute resolution, and more particularly, is directed to automated resolution of a complaint from a complainer against a party.
Credit card associations have procedures for resolving payment disputes. Due to the large volume of payment disputes, the procedures have been largely automated. Typically, a call center representative obtains payment dispute details from a cardholder via a telephone conversation, then enters the payment dispute details into a computer workstation.
The details of the dispute are compared by a computer system against automated rules for resolving disputes. If necessary to resolve the dispute, additional information is sought from the merchant involved in the dispute with the cardholder. Usually, the computer system recommends a resolution to a human staff member at the cardholder's issuing institution, and the human endorses the resolution; in many cases, the human endorsement is bypassed so that the computer system resolves the dispute without human aid.
The credit card association dispute resolution procedure is an arbitration, as a third party, i.e., not the cardholder or merchant, makes a decision that resolves the dispute. In many disputes, the third party performing the arbitration is a computer system.
If either the cardholder or the merchant is unhappy with the resolution of the dispute, and certain requirements are met, such as the dispute having at least a particular dollar value, then the dispute proceeds to human-directed arbitration.
The credit card dispute resolution process is available only when a credit card was used for payment. Furthermore, the cost of the dispute resolution process is very high, due to costs incurred when the cardholder's issuing institution and the merchant's acquiring institution are brought into a dispute between the cardholder and merchant. The cardholder is supposed to invoke the credit card dispute resolution process only after attempting to directly resolve the dispute with the merchant, but in many cases the direct resolution attempt does not occur because the merchant is not readily accessible or the cardholder wishes to avoid a direct confrontation with the merchant. Thus, the credit card dispute resolution process, while inefficient, is used when available because the alternative, cardholders fending for themselves, is worse.
Online dispute resolution services exist, but all of these services use a human as the third party directing the conflict resolution. For example, a large auction site recommends that dissatisfied bidders use a particular one of these dispute resolution services. The dispute resolution service has a first fully automated phase, in which the dispute resolution service acts as a message switch facilitating direct negotiation by e-mail between buyers and sellers, and a second human-directed phase, in which a trained mediator mediates resolution of the dispute between the buyer and the seller.
In arbitration, the third party decides the dispute, whereas in mediation, decision making authority remains with the principals involved in the dispute and the third party helps the principals to reach an agreement.
The online dispute resolution services are all fairly expensive, as a trained human is involved in resolving each dispute. Furthermore, when a human is involved, delays are inevitable.
Shipping companies have recently introduced systems to make the return shipping channel more efficient. Usually, a merchant decides when return shipping is authorized, and the shipping company enables the merchant or the merchant's customer to locally print a return shipping label; this is particularly convenient for the customer when the merchant's account is used to pay for the return shipping. However, each merchant decides how to best employ the shipping company services, that is, the shipping companies specify the procedure for reverse shipping, but not the rules governing how reverse shipping is authorized.
Other online services exist for helping parties decide the monetary value of a settlement to a conflict. A typical scenario involves a party having a claim against an insurance company. The claimant and the insurance company each provide a series of settlement amounts, in confidence, to a computer system, and the computer system uses an algorithm to computer the settlement amount, if any. These services are useful when the only item being disputed is the dollar amount of the settlement.
Accordingly, there is room for improving the efficiency of dispute resolution.